Science and technology

Nutrition

Gruel today, gruel tomorrow

EARLIER this year Asda was among a number of British supermarkets shamed because some of their beef products were found to contain horsemeat. Luckily, consumers are a forgiving lot. Asda reported last week that its sales have already recovered to pre-scandal levels. Brands have recovered from worse. Take "Soylent Green", a dystopian science-fiction film set in 2022, in which the eponymous nutritious wafer is unveiled as containing recycled humans. Now, nine years early, a product called Soylent is about to hit the shelves in America.

Its creator, Rob Rhinehart, a 24-year-old computer scientist, assures Babbage that his version of Soylent contains no human flesh. In fact, Soylent promises to be as tasteless as its name, comprised as it is mostly of powdered starch, milk proteins, olive oil, oat fibre and various trace minerals and vitamins. When reconstituted with water, Soylent becomes a unflavoured beige liquid. "There are no secrets here," says Mr Rhinehart. Just the quantities of every essential nutrient, as recommended by America's Food and Drug Administration, in their "most economical, bioavailable, water-soluble form".

Soylent is a complete food replacement for those disinclined or too busy to cook, but lacking the wherewithal to eat out. Mr Rhinehart also touts the environmental benefits of not having to travel to the shops, prepare meals or discard spoiled food. Earlier this year he put his mouth where his money is by subsisting solely on Soylent for three months. He claims never to have felt healthier.

That is not to say the process went smoothly. Mr Rhinehart is no nutritionist and early versions of Soylent had their problems. Omitting iron from his original formula made Mr Rhinehart’s heart race and an absence of sulphur caused joint pain, while (deliberate) overdoses of potassium and magnesium resulted in cardiac arrhythmia and burning sensations. He currently lives on Soylent during the week and enjoys conventional food at the weekend.

“I wanted everything that could go wrong with Soylent to happen to me first,” he explains. Seven recipes later, he believes it is ready to for wider consumption. A crowdfunding effort on his website has raised nearly $300,000 so far, with thousands of people signing up for either a week’s or a month’s supply of the stuff, due for delivery in August. There are plans afoot for male- and female-specific formulae, as well as a vegan version. “If we raise a lot, we could put money into formal testing and research,” says Mr Rhinehart.

Adam Drewnowski, director of the Centre for Public Health Nutrition at the University of Washington, will not be among them. “To some extent, Soylent is an expensive glass of milk,” he says. While Soylent’s $65 weekly price-tag is certainly cheaper than eating out, it compares unfavourably with the cost of cooking for yourself. America's Department of Agriculture recently calculated the weekly cost for a family of four to eat a thrifty but healthy diet at home as $146, even allowing for some spoilage.

Mr Drewnowski is also sceptical of Soylent’s environmental credentials. He notes that the bulk of food’s carbon footprint and greenhouse-gas emissions come from production and processing, rather than distribution, cooking or waste. Mr Drewnowski calls the carbon impact of Soylent’s milk protein "not insignificant".

Nutritionally complete liquid foods have been around for decades. Examples include milk formula for infants, weight-loss diets like the Cambridge Plan, and medical interventions for people in comas. A French product called Plumpy’Nut, based on peanut butter, provides emergency nutrition for children suffering a famine for less than $10 a week. What makes Soylent different is that it is being aimed at healthy adults who could cook and eat normally but would rather not. Soylent’s crowdfunding success indicates that there is hunger for such fuss-free food. Whether people will want to live by gruel alone in the long run is another matter altogether.

I'm amazed that Economist readers are reacting so negatively to this. Some people don't find the same sense of fulfillment you do in preparing and eating food, and they'd rather have something fast and simple to sustain themselves so they can spend their time on their actual interests. If you can't appreciate that as a valid lifestyle choice then you are a snob.

What a disappointing torrent of ignorant comments from a supposedly educated readership.

This is a great venture, it cannot possibly be beyond the wit of man to create complete and balanced liquid food. Soldiers and campers have been doing this for decades, but taste-aside the food is not adequate for long-term subsistence, and in any way its not designed for it.

Food snobs can sneer all they like, just don't buy it. Meanwhile for the rest of us that would rather engage in something more intellectually stimulating than manually preparing healthy balanced meals can look forward and hope for a solution.

Soylent may or may not be successful, and frankly I would rather have a reputable company produce this than a startup, and hopefully these will come if this venture is popular. And who knows, maybe at one point they will sort out the taste as well...

To Rob, Matt and the rest of the Soylent team, all the best with the next few months. We're big supporters (for many reasons) and look forward to the results. Don't be deterred by detractors. They've lost their visceral sense of curiosity and adventure. They aren't explorers. They're happy to live by conventional wisdom and main the status quo. Just keep on truckin'.

The only thing newsworthy about this article is that it is a good example of how the gullible, lazy and ignorant can be conned into buying anything. Unfortunately the health consequences may only become obvious after weeks, months or years.

"Soy", "Soya", as in Soy or Soya beans, right? .
None of the listed ingredients has anything to do with anything soy-derived. For food consumers who are lactose intolerant, who must eat soy in place of dairy (otherwise immediate diarrhea), the name "Soylent" is misleading. A consumer in this category of lactose-intolerant may inadvertently pick this product up assuming it contains soy instead of dairy on the basis of its name.
.
If there is a deliberate intent in this product misnomer and it can be legally proven, this is misrepresentation of a material fact, if I am not mistaken.

Meanwhile for the rest of us that would rather engage in something more intellectually stimulating than manually preparing healthy balanced meals can look forward and hope for a solution…
I think you might be in a minority who think that food is not intellectually stimulating.
What is the problem that needs this technological solution? Oh, that would be one of those the Morozov rightfully criticises.

If this product attacked the rather complex problem of nutrition it might be interesting but it doesn't. It is just the latest bottle of snake oil for the "quantified selfers".

I think you make a fair point, and I'm not opposed to this product, but I'm not sure it's responsible to market it as a "food replacement". And among the "problems with the current state of food" listed on the website, there is a conspicuous absence of the fact that Westerners increasingly eat a diet of processed foods and liquid calories, spending less and less money and time on food. The state of the environment and human health and the U.S. is, I think, a testament to the disastrous results of a culture that divorces its diet from our evolutionary ancestors' one source of food: ecosystems.

Once or twice every 10 years or so, you get mutters like him, coming up with stupid crap like this and trying to tell the vulnerable it's good for you, because your a lazy good for nothing, that hates the kitchen stove.

First, none of their five core members has a background in biochemistry or nutrition in their bios. As a consumer, this is like asking me to purchase a car manufactured by a physicist. He or she may be intelligent and able to read technical manuals, but that doesn't mean they're good at building cars, especially good cars that outperform the rest.

Second, there are very complicated biochemical interactions that occur when eating. Humans can eat a lot of things for long periods of time - Google the professor that ate only Twinkies for 10 weeks - but that doesn't mean that it's optimal or won't lead to long-term adverse conditions. I have limited experience with some of these interactions, since I experiment with diets as a personal interest. For example, on a ketogenic diet (cutting out all carbs and most proteins), it turns out that your body requires several times more sodium intake than normal, even though conventional wisdom says that sodium increases blood pressure.

Third, I do not understand why this is a goal for a project in the first place. It's possible to prepare simple meals in almost no time right now, without having to buy a ready-made shake. All it takes is preparing in advance and knowing what's healthy and what's not. It's interesting in the same way that a thought experiment is interesting, but I don't see it as very practical, except maybe in space or as an emergency food option.

The laziness implied by this product is revolting. It makes me think the American Dream is to live one's life in a Lazy-Boy recliner, hooked up to nutrition and elimination tubes, in front of a television.

"The only thing newsworthy about this article is that it is a good example of how the gullible, lazy and ignorant can be conned into buying anything."

Many years ago, I started pouring a little fruit juice -- lemon, lime, orange, cranberry -- into seltzer. Some time later, I found that for more money, the beverage industry would put artificial flavors into carbonated or uncarbonated water for a price. It shows what kind of people make money. I never would have thought anyone would buy it.